The next step is the legal challenge

Sunday

Apr 7, 2013 at 12:01 AMApr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM

No one makes anyone a criminal

RAY HACKETT

Before we start making unfounded claims as to who is, and who isn’t a criminal now that the sweeping gun reform measures have been signed into law, let’s all take a deep breath, lower our voices and examine what’s next.
There is little doubt that Connecticut’s new gun laws will be challenged in court, which means the debate is far from over. And it’s likely that the courts might issue of stay, temporarily delaying implementation of the laws — at least those provisions related to deadlines for gun owners to register what are now “illegal” guns and accessories (magazines). So, there is no need for anyone to claim that the state turned them into criminals.
I’m not a lawyer, so the best I can offer is a layman’s opinion, but I’m not sure what legal grounds there are to file suit seeking to have the new law thrown out because its unconstitutional. That’s not to say they can’t file a lawsuit, I just don’t see the grounds for it.
I’m not a judge either, so the best I can offer is a layman’s opinion, but there isn’t anything in the new laws that would seem to me to be considered unconstitutional, based on existing legal precedent — namely, the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The Court held that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” And, there is nothing in the recently enacted law that says an individual can’t. In fact, the new law clearly states that if you owned a weapon or magazine prior to the law taking effect and is now considered illegal, you get to keep it.
You will have to register it, but that isn’t a violation of anyone’s right to “keep and bear arms.” I’ll grant you that it is yet another level of bureaucracy, but inconvenience isn’t the same thing as infringement — and I’m pretty sure that even the courts would make that distinction.
In that 2008 ruling, the Court also inserted the “clause of reason,” which is legalese meaning that our right to keep and bear arms is a guarantee to own a weapon(s) of “reasonable” means of self-defense. What’s reasonable wasn’t explained, but I think we can all agree that bazookas don’t fit the definition.
That would be another matter for the courts, so we can forgive them if they opted not to cut back on business in this tough economy.
What the Court did say, however, is that the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is not “absolute,” that the “state” (as in government) has the right to restrict, limit and ban some weapons deemed to be “not reasonable” for personal self-defense.
It seems the Court found the Founding Fathers’ reference to a “well regulated militia” suggested that “regulation” was part of the deal for this particular “freedom.” Now think about, who do you think the Founding Fathers intended to be the ones doing the regulating?
Everyone who said government gets a gold star.
Look, if an individual or group believes the state went too far in regulating gun ownership with this new law, or that their right to “reasonable” weapons for personal self-defense is being denied, or the mandate to register pre-owned weapons or magazines is an infringement, there is a “legal” course of action to take: Sue. (I’m sure all the law-abiding gun owners appreciate the freedom of having that option.)
The courts will decide if Connecticut’s new law passes constitutional muster. If it doesn’t, the law is thrown out and no one is a criminal. If it does, then that’s the law. And if an individual chooses to ignore or defy it, then yes, they are then criminals.
But let’s be clear — no one “made” them criminals. They do that all on their own.
Ray Hackett is The Bulletin’s editorial page editor. He has more than 25 years covering Connecticut politics. He can be reached at (860) 425-4225 or rhackett@norwichbulletin.com.